Susanna Reid, "Why have you brought up rejoining the European Union?" Andy Burnham, "We have a decade of experience now looking back at Brexit, and I don't think it has played out as people said at the time" "We got a harder Brexit than was proposed in. the referendum campaign, it's weakened our economy, it's also weakened our control of immigration" "That might surprise people because that was the big issue. - The small boats crisis has arisen since" "I'm not proposing rejoining in this parliament" "What I am saying is we need to take some practical steps to make things work better" My view: Ten years after the referendum, we can finally judge Brexit on its actual consequences rather than the promises made in 2016. The economic evidence is substantial. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit will leave Britain's long-term productivity 4% lower than if we had remained in the EU, with trade volumes around 15% lower. And immigration? One of the great ironies of Brexit is that ending freedom of movement did not deliver the reductions promised. Instead, the Conservative government introduced a new immigration system, and net migration subsequently reached a record 944,000 in the year to March 2023. We exchanged reciprocal freedom of movement, which also gave British citizens the right to live, work and retire across Europe, for a system that restricted those opportunities while initially producing substantially higher immigration. The small boats crisis is a separate issue, but Brexit certainly did not resolve it. There is also an important distinction between what people voted for in 2016 and the particular Brexit subsequently negotiated. The referendum did not specify leaving the Single Market or Customs Union. Rejoining the EU would require negotiations, public consent and difficult decisions. But discussing it should not be treated as controversial or undemocratic. Democracy did not end on 23 June 2016. Ten years of evidence should inform Britain's next decisions, not be ignored simply because the subject makes some politicians uncomfortable. The question now is not whether Brexit can be defended as an article of faith, but what relationship with Europe will best serve Britain's economy, businesses, young people and future generations.

The Chancellor has admitted that an independent Scotland could have had a £1 trillion wealth fund by now - but instead, the country's energy resources were frittered away. How could this happen? Editor Laura Webster explains